Social Science History Association

An Anthropologist's View
Author(s): Stephen Gudeman
Source: Social Science History, Vol. 3, No. 3/4 (1979), pp. 56-65
Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of the Social Science History Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170956 .
Accessed: 14/10/2014 14:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Duke University Press and Social Science History Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Social Science History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HerbertGutman's
The Black Familyin Slavery
and Freedom,1750-1925
View
An Anthropologist's

STEPHEN GUDEMAN
of Minnesota
University

With Professor Gutman's superb work The Black Family in Slavery

and Freedom,1750-1925anyanthropologist would feelmostcom-
fortable,for this is a study of the and
fine-grain intimaterelation-
of
ships among group people, and such a topic comprisesthe
a
normalterrain-I am temptedto say the"territorial imperative"-
of the anthropologist.But the workis especiallyappealingto the
anthropologistbecause Gutmanhas chosen to turnhis immense
energieson thefamily.To manypeople "begitsand begats,"termi-
nologiesand genealogiesare, at best,sterileways to talk about a
groupand, at worst,unfortunate reminders ofyouthfulyearsspent
studying the Bible. But to the anthropologisttheseare technical
ideas of the trade,conceptswhichrevealmuchabout therelation-
shipsin a particularsocietyat a particulartime.Lastly,and herethe
anthropologist joins manyothers,we are all in thedebtofGutman
forbringingto lightan aspectoftheAmericanexperienceofwhich
mostofus werepreviouslyunaware.Perhapsthemostmoving,and
paradoxical,aspect of theworkis thatbecause it is a testimony to
theprofoundcapacityoftheblackto preservehisessentialhumanity
underthe most frightening of conditions,conditionsimposedby
otherhumans, it is also an affirmation thatall humansmaketheir
lives,and theirhistory.

Author'sNote: To mycolleaguesKarenBlu and JoanScottlam indebted

for usefuldiscussionof thisessay;some of theircommentshave beenhere
incorporated.
SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY, Vol. 3, Nos. 3 & 4 October 1979 56-65
@ 1979 Social Science HistoryAssn.

56

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ANTHROPOLOGIST'S VIEW 57

Withall thesevirtuesit mightseemchurlishto register disagree-

mentwithportionsof thebook, butperhapssuchwillbe permitted
intheattemptto strengthen and enhanceour overallunderstanding
of thisperiod of history.
For this reader,the centralthemewhichemergesfromthe in-
formationpresentedis that of patternor structurein the kinship
system.It is exactlythis idea, however,whichat timesbecomes
obscuredforbothpolemicaland conceptualreasons.Beforeturning
to some oftheanthropologicaldetailsconcerning familystructure,
let me attemptto place the issue of patterninto the contextof
Gutman'sown argument.
Gutmanhas chosen to emphasizethattheslavesevincedan im-
menseadaptivecapacity,the capacityto developtheirown beliefs
and practices-in short,theirown culture.Withthis as his stan-
dard,Gutmandoes battleon threemajorfronts.First,he attempts
to show that slave customs,such as those surroundingthe mar-
riage pattern,were new developmentsand not simplyreplicas
of prior Africanbehavior. Second, he voices emphaticallythat
slave patternswere not a directresultof the slaveryrelationship
itself,eitherin thesenseof beingcaused bythemaster-slave bond,
or in thesenseofbeingmodeledafterthebehaviorofthedominant
class.The stakeshere,incidentally, are large,forGutmanis arguing
against a behavioristic interpretation of slave practices; slave
behaviorwas not determineddirectlyby its precedingconditions,
but mediatedby a human culturalcapacity.Lastly,as a way of
emphasizingthisautonomyof slave culture,Gutmanis concerned
to show that slave behaviorwas patternedand not disorderedor
disorganized.The argumenthe herecountershas manyvariations.
Some would see slave lifeas itselfpatterned, butperceivea present
"dis-organization" in black familylife,such disorganizationbeing
due to the effectsof emancipation.Othersmightperceivea conti-
nuityof disorderin black lifefromearliestmoments;and in one
extremeformthismisperception is takento meanthatslaves,and
blacks, lacked culture.(To the anthropologistthis statementis
sheernonsense.)
Unfortunately, because Gutmanhas taken on so manyfronts,
he often confusesthe detectionofpatternwiththatofcause. "Slave
experience"becomes an explanationfor that whichexisted;but
this is no explanation."Adaptation"is also broughtinto service

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

as explanationof pattern,but adaptationdirectlyimpliesan ex-

changeand perhapsasymmetric betweentwocultures,
relationships
two classes, or two people, and it is preciselysuch inner-outer
relationships whichGutmandoes notconsider.In otherwords,be-
cause Gutmanwishesto assertthedistinctiveness and autonomyof
slave patterns,he is led to denyentirely theeffectoftheencompas-
singrelationship--that of master-slave.
In addition,in his desireto establishthe realityand autonomy
of slave familylife,Gutmanhas isolatedit fromotherspheresof
slave behavior. Systems of kinship,the anthropologistusually
finds,both incorporateand mediate impulses emanatingfrom
otherdomains. Abstractinga familysystemfromits contexthas
the meritof underliningits patternednormativebasis but the
demeritof diminishingour understandingof its functionsand
meaning.The problemhere bordersupon the issue of causation.
If we ask whatwerethe formativeinfluenceson black familylife,
this also means to what else in slave expeiience was familylife
related?In this contextthereare two crucial dimensionswhich
Gutman omits:the effectof both religionand everydayworkon
the constitution of theslave family.I suspectthesehad a farmore
profoundeffectthanGutmanallows.
Let me now turnto kinshipalone. Gutmansuggeststhatkinship
relationshipsand networkswere importantto the slave, that
domesticarrangementshad an order,that marriagepractices-
fromexogamy to durability-had a sensibilitynot always per-
ceived,and thatnamingpractices,includingbothformsofpersonal
designationand kinship terminologies,were highlypatterned.
But amongstall thesediversefacetsof slave familylifehe draws
no continuities, no threads.Is there,we may ask, behindall that
Gutmanhas made sensible,some further sense?Is therea tighter
orderthan he indicates?The viewsof one anthropologist follow.
I hold thatone mustbegintheanalysis-and hereI departfrom
Gutman-withthemaster-slave bond as thebase relationship and,
in particular,as a juridicaltie. Here I invokenothingabout imita-
tivemodelsor paternalism: rather,builtintoslaveryis a well-known
contradiction.The labor forcemustnot onlyproduce,it mustbe
perpetuated;and afterabolition this perpetuationwas accom-
plished not by the fresh recruitmentof slaves from outside the
system but by having currentlypossessed slaves engender new

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ANTHROPOLOGIST'S VIEW 59

ones. Recruitment to theslavelaborforcewas bybirthto a member

of thatlabor force.
This factmade birtha dual event.On the one hand,birthwas a
jural relationin the sense that it fixedthe newborn'spositionin
societyas a slave. Black childrenwere born into a determinant
legal position.On the otherhand, birthwas also and always a
fact of kinshipforthe slave, a matterof filiation.Here Gutman
mightlegitimately have drawn on the extantanthropologicalre-
ports on Africa which suggestthat birthis always recognizedas
givingrise to relationshipsof kinshipand that even in the most
pronouncedpatrilinealor matrilinealsocietysuch kinshipacross
thegenerations(or filiation)is alwaysbilateral-thatis,recognized
as existingbetweeneach of the parentsand thechild.Thus, every
newbornblack had a dual persona which arose fromthe same
event:he was legallyin subjectionto a masterwho possessedhim
as anotherpiece of naturalproperty, and he was bound by tiesof
kinship to other social beings.
The contradiction, then,is thatthemasterspossessedtheslaves
as things,as property,but theyalso dependedon the slaves for
reproduction.This factendowedthe slaves notjust witha degree
of freedomor a moral victorywhich assertedtheirhumanity,
but witha kinshipsystem.
My firstthesis,then, is that to understandthe black family
in slaverywe must see it withinthe contextof this determinant
juridicalrelationship.
Given this contextlet us considerpersonalnames,a subjectto
whichGutmanattachessome importance.That manyslaves had
surnames,or last names,seems apparentfromthe data, but the
significanceof thisfactis not obvious. There are severalenigmas
here.Why,in thefirstinstance,did mostmastersdenyor suppress
the existenceof slave surnames,particularlywhen so many of
thesesurnameswereoriginallytakenfromwhitemasters?Second,
why did slaves persistin handingon such surnames,but appear
hesitantto use them,whollyaside frompressurefromthemasters?
Third, why did slaves continueto keep surnamesafteremanci-
pation but also use thatoccasion to changetheirreceivednames?
Some of thesequestionsevaporateifwe startfromthe propo-
sition that a surnamein the Americansystemsignifiesdescent.

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

Ifslavesin sucha contextwerelegallyable to pass on surnames,this

would implythattheirveryfactofbirthgave thema typeof civil,
juridicial,or at least human statusas the offspring of others,a
status independentof theirmasters,and a statusthe latterwere
most anxious to deny. Let me put the point in a different way.
Gutmanseemsto findit curiousthatslave surnamesoftendiffered
fromthoseoftheirmasters,butthisis notquitethepuzzlehe makes
ofit. Ifslaves'surnameshad beenthesameas theirmasters',thenthe
last nameswould nothavebeensurnamesbutproperty names,and
theywouldhavechangedat each saleand purchase.Mastersdid not
need or use thismethodof designating property.Last nameswere
transmitted of
not at point sale but at pointof birth,and precisely
because of this factmasterswere concernedto denythe descent
and legal implicationsof the kinshipevent.On the otherhand,
because surnamesprobablyweretakenfromthosewho firstpos-
sessed a slave's ancestors,they must have been somewhatam-
biguous labels to the slaves themselves.The namesdid designate
descent from a body of "independent"human beings,but the
designationsmackedof property.
Actually,this final observationraises a furtherpoint about
surnameson whichGutmanis silent:the rule(or rules)of trans-
mission. But some scatteredevidence(see especially1976: 248),
suggeststhat surnameswere not patronymsbut transmitted via
females,that is, frommotherto children;theywere matronyms.
In other words, while slave surnamesdid indicatean ancestry
independentof masters,theyweredecisiveindicatorsof thestatus
of newbornsas slaves: mastersobtained rightsto the offspring
of theirfemalesbut not theirmales (see 1976:64, 190,313). Is it a
wonder,then,that at emancipationmany surnamechanges oc-
curred?Initiatedby individuals,the changesindicatedthat their
statuseswereno longerdefinedbytheirownersbutbytheirfathers,
husbands,and themselves.Emancipationwitnesseda transition
froma systemof matronymsto a systemof patronyms, and this
because the shiftsignaledan end to theoriginsoftheslaveryrela-
tionshipwhile affirming the independentlegal status of the ex-
slaves.
As againstthe last name, the firstname stood, I believe,fora
differentconstellation of beliefs and behavior. The first name,
above all, provided the slave with an individual persona; Gutman

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ANTHROPOLOGIST'S VIEW 61

does not remarkon thefactthatin all thelistshe presentsof slave

firstnames,thereis almost no repetitionof firstnames withina
plantationexcept in the clear instanceswherean individualwas
named aftera relative.I am temptedto call this a plantation
exogamy of names, a practicewhich supportedthe idea of the
individual.On the otherhand, in cases wherenamingafterkin
did occur, at least several patternsdeserve notice beyond that
given by Gutman. First,onlyveryrarelywas a daughternamed
afterhermother,but such was notthe case withsons and fathers.
In lightofthepreviousdiscussionwe can suggestat leastonereason
forthispractice.The kinshiprelationshipof motherto offspring
was recognizedin law by the masters;the patrifilialrelationship
was not. Thus, one functionof the practiceof namingchildren
afterthe fatheror his relativeswas to assertthat a slave had a
kinship position in slave society,which meant having relatives
determinedbilaterally,throughboth motherand father.Second
(and thisfactalso is notsufficiently emphasizedbyGutman),when
namesweredrawn from relatives,theyweredrawnalmostentirely
fromwhattheanthropologist would call consanguinealor "blood"
relatives;affinesor in-laws, such as the husbands of mother's
were
sisters, not remembered in names.The firstnamearose out of
the individual'skinshippositionand stood forthe set of bilateral
kinshiprelationshipshe held as a memberof slave society;this
internalsystem,however,was constrainedby the encompassing
contextin whichit flowered.Juridicalfamilyrelationships, what
today we call "in-law" relationships,were outside the domain
of possible kinshipforthe slaves. Thus, "juridicalrelatives"were
not rememberedin names. I shall providea more explicitreason
forthispatternwhenmarriageis considered.
When we turn to the contentof kinshiprelationshipsthem-
selves,several points mightbe broughtinto relief.Gutmanpre-
sentsampletestimony to thedepthoftheaffectand sentiment which
such bonds aroused in slaves. This is trulymovingmaterial,but I
would commendto attentionthe factthat so manyrelationships
were statedin termsof affectand not obligations.This is, ifyou
permit,kinshipof the firstand not the last name. To put it more
forcefully:in many societies, kinship relationshipsmay entail
obligatoryritual, economic, or political performances.In the

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

materialprovided,this duty dimensionis missing.In addition,

mostof therelationships forwhichthereis observationalevidence
fall withina fairlyrestrictedset: siblings,parent-child,grand-
parent-grandchild. Very few, if any, letters,for example, were
writtenbetweenor about firstcousins.(For anthropologists it is
interestingto note that the sibling-sibling bond seemed to be
central.) But more important,these relativesdid not include
"in-laws."Thus, one slave made reference to an uncleand his wife
(1976: 214); here, the is
legal separated from the consanguineal,
the juridical fromthe emotive,a fact obscuredby Gutman'sin-
discriminateuse of the terms"aunt" and "uncle." My favorite
example, however,is the referenceto a stepfather as being"not
a drop of kin" a
(1976: 215); stepfather is not kin because he shares
not a drop of blood. I hope, however,thatmycommentsare not
misunderstood:none of this implieslack of organizationin the
slave family.To the contrary,the evidencesuggestssome fasci-
nating patterns,and patternmeans structure,organization,or
more broadly,culture.All I am emphasizingis thatfortheslaves,
kinshipwas foundedon "blood" and thatwhatwe call legal ties-
legal in the triplesense of officiallaw, socially recognizedobli-
gations,and relationshipsconceivedto be createdbyvolitionand
not nature-were not an importantpartof slave kinshippatterns.
To reiterate,thisfactwas a resultof the givenconditionsof the
master-slave relationship in whichthemastersappropriatedortook
nearlyexclusivecontrolof the legal domain.
On the other hand, having underlinedthese elementsof the
kinshipsystem, I hopeyouwillnotbe carriedawaybythemanygene-
alogies that the author presents.Genealogiesare interesting but
usually quite irrelevantin the analysisof kinship.Observe that
the ones presentedwereconstructedby theauthorfrombirthrec-
ordskeptbyslaveowners.Thesewerebusinessrecords,and interms
of kinshiptheymerelyattestto the factthat everyoneis the off-
springof a male and femalememberof the species.But kinship,
as opposed to genetics,is a humanlyor culturallyrecognized
phenomenon:would the slaves have keptgenealogiesin thisway?
Furthermore, a genealogyin itselftellsnothingabouttherecognition
and quality of kinshiprelationshipsthereenshrined.Indeed, to
presentthesegenealogiesas historicalfactsis verymisleading,for
the diagramsseem to implythat each plantationconsistedof a

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ANTHROPOLOGIST'S VIEW 63

dense networkof slaves who wereall interrelated. What is needed

here are supportingdata concerningactual slave kinshipgene-
alogies as wellas therelatedinteractions and behavior.The geneal-
ogies simply do not bear the analyticalweightthatGutmanwishes
to render to them. All this,in turn,impliesthat the genealogies
cannot be adduced as evidenceforor againstAfricancontinuity,
and theydo not revealanythingabout groups.At mostthe gene-
alogies supportthe idea that networksof slave kinsfolkexisted,
but theymost assuredlyare not evidenceof "blood-kingroups"
(Gutman, 1976: 93). Groups are discreteor closed entities.Kin
groups,or groupsconsistingonlyof kin,haveto be based on a line
of descentin one sex alone or on anotherprincipleofclosure,such
as co-residenceof kin. What Gutmanreports-to the extentwe
accept the genealogiesas evidence of real relationships-is the
existenceof interlinking bonds of kinship,thatis, networks.(But I
caution again that the actual kin withwhom real relationswere
maintainedconstitutedbut a subsetof such "paper" networks.)
The subjectof marriagein the slave familyis so complex,and
would admit of enough different interpretations fromthe scant
data, that I limitmyself to remarks related to mygeneraltheme.
First, Gutman seems to assume that words like marriageand
legitimacy referto monolothicand realentities;suchis notthecase,
and I know of no generallyaccepted cross-societaldefinitionof
marriage.Rather,I would urgethata promiscuoususe oftheterm
be eschewed in favor of more exact analyticaldesignators.To
speak ofsexualrelationships betweenslavesofdifferent plantations
as marriage(Gutman, 1976: 135) and therebyto equate thiswith
permanentco-residentialunions on the same plantationis surely
to confounddifferent relationships.(This, incidentally, is another
example of the way in whichmutegenealogiescan misleadlater
generations;theytell nothingabout real relationships.)I suspect
thatat a minimumwe need to distinguish analyticalcategoriesof
the followingorder: extra-residential unions, co-residentialcon-
sensualunions,and co-residential unionswitha ceremony, suchas
jumping over the broomstick. Where the investigator wishes to
apply the label "marriage" is not important, but it is crucial to
the
distinguish different relationshipsand to recognize that none
of thesecorrespondedwitha whitemarriageor constituted a legal
or civilmarriage.Of course,in parallelto thisanalysiswe wantto

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

know how the slaves definedand distinguished the relationships

themselves.Whichones, forexample,constitutedmarriage?
One reason whymarriagehas provenso evasiveofdefinition is
thatitis usuallytiedin somefashionto recognition oftheoffspring.
Butinslavery, civilstatuswasdefinedtheslavesas was legalrecogni-
tion of theirmarriage.It was thisfundamental denial,I have pro-
posed, whichhad a profoundeffecton thepatternof theirkinship
system.Marriage could not convertthe external-legalinto the
internal-obligatory. by way of this social fact the encompassing
master-slaverelationshipservedto cut offrecognitionof kinship
relationships formed"by law." On the otherhand,and thisis the
perplexingpoint,slavesoftenseemedto perform theirowninternal
marriageceremony-suchasjumping the broomstick. Did thisslave
practicemarknot onlyrecognitionof theconjugalbond butalso a
"local" legitimacy oftheoffspring who mightissuefromthecouple?
We can be moreprecise.The mother-child link,beinga property
transmitting relationship,was legally recognizedby slaves and
by whitesociety(Gutman,1976: 131,190).The centralissue,there-
fore,concernsthe recognitionand natureof the relationshipbe-
tweenfatherand offspring. In whatway,ifat all, did theslaveform
ofmarriageaffectthistie?Abouttheimportanceofthisrelationship
we have someevidencebased on firstnames,on surnamesand their
use at emancipation,and on theefforts malesexertedat emancipa-
tion to reunitetheirseparatedfamilies.But behavioralevidence
about thisrelationshipin slaverywould be invaluable.
In summary,I hope to have suggestedthatthe anthropologist
withhis notionof structure has an importantperspectiveto offer
the historian.The essence of my argumentis that slave kinship
was set into an "external"juridicalrelationship, and thisrelation-
shiphad a significant impacton thepatternthatthekinshipsystem
took. In particular,we have observedthisimpactin the pattern
of firstand last name use, in the patternwherebyin-lawrelation-
ships and "legal" obligationsdid not become part of the kinship
system,and in the patternof marriage.In each case, and taken
together,the anthropologistperceivesa coherence.Furthermore,
on analyticalgroundswe observethat forenhancingour under-
standingof the constitutionof the black familyin slavery,the
father-childrelationshipis the key bond to examine. Further

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ANTHROPOLOGIST'S VIEW 65

of thisrelationshipmightfinallylay to restany false

investigation
notionsabout "disorganizedblackfamilies."But perhapsProfessor
Gutman has already placed, under such erroneousconceptions,
enoughtime-bombs!

REFERENCE

GUTMAN, H. (1976) The Black Family in Slaveryand Freedom,1750-1925.New York:

PantheonBooks.

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions